Cause of the incident<\/h3>\n
The collapse of the ceiling was caused by construction work commissioned by the owner. The owner clearly did not choose the most competent contractors, which is hardly surprising given that he did not apply for a permit from the city council and no technician supervised the work.<\/p>\n
Immediate consequences<\/h3>\n
While the victim was in the bathroom of the apartment, she was caught off guard by debris falling rapidly from the floor above. While dodging the falling objects, she lost her balance and fell to the floor, striking herself on a bathroom fixture. This resulted in a possible fracture of her left ischiopubic ramus.<\/p>\n
Unique nature of the case<\/h3>\n
What made this case unique\u2014and caught our attention\u2014was that the person involved was not the owner, but a seasonal tenant of the property, with a 7-month lease. This contractual relationship was not formalized in writing or officially recognized, as the property owner had not registered it nor issued rent receipts. These reasons led us to believe that our client\u2019s interests could be satisfied without court intervention.<\/p>\n
The owner's responsibility<\/h3>\n
The property owner is liable to the tenant for any damages that may occur as a result of elements or components of the property itself, provided that such elements or components are not the tenant\u2019s responsibility to maintain. Insurance coverage for such damages is at the discretion of the landlord, who must assume coverage for these risks if they do not do so personally. Increasingly, we are seeing lease agreements shift the obligation to purchase such insurance coverage to the tenant, who assumes the risks if they fail to do so.<\/p>\n
The legal basis for the landlord\u2019s obligation to make all necessary repairs to ensure that the dwelling is fit for habitation and suitable for its intended use is found in Article 24 of the Urban Lease Law and in Articles 1563 and 1564 of the Civil Code.<\/p>\n
Avoiding legal liability<\/h3>\n
Since no lease agreement was signed, it is clear that no terms were established, let alone a requirement to insure your stay in the property. Therefore, any damage caused would have been the responsibility of the property owner.<\/p>\n
Throughout our efforts, we observed the landlord\u2019s attempts to evade the issue and fail to respond to our requests. It is clear that, by acting in violation of the law\u2014as in this case, by failing to formalize a lease agreement\u2014the landlord sought to ignore the existence of a tenancy. She must ultimately be held responsible for the consequences of such conduct, provided there is a direct link between the award of damages and the lack of insurance coverage.<\/p>\n
Insurance Limitations<\/h3>\n
The landlord's insurance policy did not cover the tenant, so the insurance company's claim only covered damage to the building and its contents, excluding the damage suffered by the tenant because she was not insured.<\/p>\n
Legal Consequences and Liability<\/h3>\n
In our opinion, this is detrimental to the property. If, for any reason, the tenant is not satisfied with the compensation for damages, the property would be held liable. This would apply if the exemption from liability toward the injured party were based on a failure to prove that the person was in the residence at the time of the fall or a failure to produce a lease agreement justifying their presence in the residence during the incident.<\/p>\n
Our Supreme Court has established clear legal principles regarding a landlord\u2019s liability toward their tenant. The landlord is liable only for damages resulting from the property itself, but never for acts committed by third parties.<\/p>\n
This doctrine has been applied in several cases where the cause of the tenant\u2019s damages was the poor condition of common areas or third-party dwellings, and the same doctrine applies to this situation.<\/p>\n
Carlos Ba\u00f1o Law Firm<\/h2>\n
We have learned from the insurance company that the policy covers damage to the building and its contents, but not injury to people inside the home. For this reason, and given the lack of response from the owner, we have decided to file claims against both the property owner and the neighbor who caused the damage.<\/p>\n
In this case, the owner of the property where the construction work that caused the accident took place is liable under tort law. This does not preclude the possibility of vicarious liability should the owner be exonerated, although we find it difficult to accept that possibility. If there is such liability, it would be due to the lack of sufficient evidence of the tenancy agreement to hold a third party liable.<\/p>\n
![\"Partial](\"https:\/\/www.cbleon-abogados.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/caida-techo-afectando-persona.jpeg\" "\\"Partial")
<\/p>\n
The basis for this assertion is found in Article 1560 of the Civil Code, which provides that the landlord is not liable for disturbances caused by a third party in the use of the leased property. However, the tenant may bring a direct action against the party causing the disturbance.<\/p>\n
It is clear that \u201cmere disturbance\u201d should be understood to mean the causing of any type of damage. We also find this in Article 1902 of the Civil Code, which recognizes the tenant\u2019s standing to bring a claim based on non-contractual civil liability and establishes the obligation to repair the damage caused, whether by act or omission.<\/p>\n
Therefore, even if the homeowner is liable for the accident, the landlord is also liable on a secondary basis.<\/p>\n
For more information about our legal services, visit our Tort Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n![\"Lawyer](\"https:\/\/www.cbleon-abogados.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/abogado-carlos-leon-asesoramiento-portada.jpg\" "\\"Lawyer")
<\/p>\n